X-boxershorts:skylabdown: Yeah, it's really shocking when people get mad when others attempt to deny them their inalienable rights.

What an asshole!

There are only 3 inalienable rights.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The remaining rights are legislated and applied to citizens (and residents) of the United States and their extent and application is constantly re-interpreted and limited or expanded through the legislative and judicial process. The 2nd amendment rights are among this group.

Liberty isn't a right.... it's a result. You saying the right to self-defense isn't unalienable doesn't make it so. You are mistaken.

vartian:Now, there's a fury in me -- I'm just being honest with you -- that I'm trying to contain. Biden, the moron Senator from Delaware, taking his train back and forth and back and forth on Amtrak. Oh wow, what a guy.

knbwhite:edmo: His highly articulate thoughts complete with detailed implementation schema for stopping the killing of 5 and 6-year olds is a much welcome solution to our national problem. He and his buddies will have this all solved soon.

Backyard pools kill too many children. No one needs a backyard pool. If we can just save one child from drowning, I would gladly give up my right to have a back yard pool.

Stupid hyperbolic argument is stupid.

We have backyard pools here, but we have laws that state that they need to be enclosed so that children don't accidently fall into them and drown.

We have cars, but we have laws about how fast you can go and how you can drive them (and not drinking while driving) so that people are not needlessly killed.

Whilst doubtlessly a gun ban is the most effective way to reduce gun violence, what is being discussed is merely regulation, like the above examples, in order to reduce gun violence.

This is sensible. Your inability to see this makes you a moron. Good luck with that, and in life in general.

TwistedFark:knbwhite: edmo: His highly articulate thoughts complete with detailed implementation schema for stopping the killing of 5 and 6-year olds is a much welcome solution to our national problem. He and his buddies will have this all solved soon.

Backyard pools kill too many children. No one needs a backyard pool. If we can just save one child from drowning, I would gladly give up my right to have a back yard pool.

Stupid hyperbolic argument is stupid.

We have backyard pools here, but we have laws that state that they need to be enclosed so that children don't accidently fall into them and drown.

We have cars, but we have laws about how fast you can go and how you can drive them (and not drinking while driving) so that people are not needlessly killed.

Whilst doubtlessly a gun ban is the most effective way to reduce gun violence, what is being discussed is merely regulation, like the above examples, in order to reduce gun violence.

This is sensible. Your inability to see this makes you a moron. Good luck with that, and in life in general.

the opposite of charity is justice:vartian: Now, there's a fury in me -- I'm just being honest with you -- that I'm trying to contain. Biden, the moron Senator from Delaware, taking his train back and forth and back and forth on Amtrak. Oh wow, what a guy.

Why do Conservatives hate trains so much?

[www.ragetrolling.com image 420x294]

Yup, when I read that line in the article, that image macro popped right into my head.

Its amazing how they care so much about the 2nd ammendment, but don't give a flying fark about the 4th or 5th ammendments.

It's similar to their cherry picking of beliefs out of the Bible. "Oh, Some obscure passage in some obscure book called Leviticus says god hates gays, but when our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ says to help the poor and to help the sick, fark what that hippy had to say, we should just ignore that completely."

I have a theory about this. These people are not, generally, intellectuals. The 2nd amendment is easy for them to understand, it's very concrete- "I get a gun." The 4th and 5th amendments are incredibly abstract and require an huge amount of nuance to interpret. So they just ignore them. Plus, these people never see themselves as lawbreakers, so why should they care about due process (until they get caught doing something, then they come whining to a lawyer just like everyone else).

skylabdown:X-boxershorts: skylabdown: Yeah, it's really shocking when people get mad when others attempt to deny them their inalienable rights.

What an asshole!

There are only 3 inalienable rights.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The remaining rights are legislated and applied to citizens (and residents) of the United States and their extent and application is constantly re-interpreted and limited or expanded through the legislative and judicial process. The 2nd amendment rights are among this group.

Liberty isn't a right.... it's a result. You saying the right to self-defense isn't unalienable doesn't make it so. You are mistaken.

Come on man, he's referencing the Declaration of Independence, not making some grand philosophical statement. And technically, all of your rights are inalienable, because you can't sell them to someone else.

It is my opinion that the Second Amendment- that an armed, civilian populus, is a vital check against the threat of tyranny. The possibility of an armed revolution is a large part of what allows us to keep our regularly scheduled, peaceful revolutions relatively honest.

That being said, I have no objection to a database of registered gun owners. I wouldn't oppose a Judge Dread style system that tags any bullet fired with the DNA of the person who pulled the trigger, and the serial number of the weapon used to fire it. I don't think there should be restrictions on ownership of firearms, but I don't have a rational argument against firearm ownership / possession being tracked.

I don't oppose registration and tracking of of cars or nuclear weapons either, for much the same reason: They are all, to varying degrees, devices that allow a single party to infringe upon the rights* of many others without those others' consent.

*simple, basic rights, such as the right to not be murdered, vehicular manslaughtered, or atomized in a nuclear explosion.

dr_blasto:None of these assholes had a problem with GHW Bush banning import of whole piles of guns by executive order. None of them seem pissed about the increased surveillance and erosion of the 4th and 5th. No, its just guns.

I'd also point out that this jackass has no idea what tyranny really is. Misuse a word long enough and it loses its meaning.

You do understand that, based on what's in the U.S. constitution, it matters what's in the executive order? That importation of guns is clearly a federal matter, whereas many other laws are left to the state's, or may be unconstitutional no matter who passes them.

The ignorance of this document is appalling. It has nothing to do with party affiliation. You need to know what is in it or shut your trap. No heinous crime can nullify it, quite the opposite.

skylabdown:X-boxershorts: skylabdown: Yeah, it's really shocking when people get mad when others attempt to deny them their inalienable rights.

What an asshole!

There are only 3 inalienable rights.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The remaining rights are legislated and applied to citizens (and residents) of the United States and their extent and application is constantly re-interpreted and limited or expanded through the legislative and judicial process. The 2nd amendment rights are among this group.

Liberty isn't a right.... it's a result. You saying the right to self-defense isn't unalienable doesn't make it so. You are mistaken.

Your own nation's history, you should read it:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness "

Should you ever be convicted of a felony, (and it;s getting easier all the time), your second amendment rights can and will be alienated.

X-boxershorts:skylabdown: Yeah, it's really shocking when people get mad when others attempt to deny them their inalienable rights.

What an asshole!

There are only 3 inalienable rights.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The remaining rights are legislated and applied to citizens (and residents) of the United States and their extent and application is constantly re-interpreted and limited or expanded through the legislative and judicial process. The 2nd amendment rights are among this group.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness "

Should you ever be convicted of a felony, (and it;s getting easier all the time), your second amendment rights can and will be alienated.

I find myself thinking about the "but then the government will be able to round me up" argument against a firearms registration database, and it occurs to me that, given that we live in The Future now, it's no longer plausable. Because of cell phones and the internet, there's instantanious communication between people all over the country1. If the government did decide to "round up" all the gun owners2, the first one who has his door kicked in is going to be communicating to his associates that this is happening, giving each of them a head start on defending themselves, making the "rounding up" more difficult, if not flat impossible. It's the same as when the police conduct a raid on a target with a capacity / propensity towards violence, coordinating movements and aspects of the raid to maintain the element of surprise as long as possible. The police will execute timed raids on multiple drug houses in a network similtaniously.3, so no target can warn any others. The larger the group being targeted, the larger the force targeting them needs to be, while still maintaining that same level of coordination.

When it comes to gun owners, or even just NRA members4 that's quite a large group of targets. The size of the force that would be required to execute similtanious raids on all those persons is simply too large for the attacks to be coordinated with precision, or for it to be arranged in absolute secrecy from any target, or anyone who might simply inform any target.

It's as absurd a propasition as that one that explosives had been secretely installed inside the walls of the World Trade Center. Too many people would have had to have to be in on it.

1. And indeed, the world, but that is beyond the scope of the current discussion2. Or those who populate any national scale database or list3. An assessment of tactics, not an endorsement of policy4. And does anybody really think the goverment doesn't already have a copy of that database?

X-boxershorts:Jorn the Younger: Should you ever be convicted of a felony, (and it;s getting easier all the time), your second amendment rights can and will be alienated.

the 2nd is still not among those left un-enumerated in the constitution and it can and will be alienated.

Hope that helps

The three you list aren't enumerated in the Constitution either. That quote is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not actually a legislative or governing work. The Declaration makes no legally binding protection of these rights, nor does it actively exclude protection from all but the three so named.

Which still doesn't change the fact that you stated "only three" when the very document you were referring to states that the enumerated three are not the entirety, or "only"

X-boxershorts:the 2nd is still not among those left un-enumerated in the constitution and it can and will be alienated.

And, to avoid confusion, I'm not arguing against registration of guns, nor am I arguing against restrictions on access to firearms. I'm simply pointing out that your initial premise is fundamentally flawed, and if you're hoping to convince someone who doesn't already agree with you, it's usually better to start from a solid foundation.

Jorn the Younger:X-boxershorts: the 2nd is still not among those left un-enumerated in the constitution and it can and will be alienated.

And, to avoid confusion, I'm not arguing against registration of guns, nor am I arguing against restrictions on access to firearms. I'm simply pointing out that your initial premise is fundamentally flawed, and if you're hoping to convince someone who doesn't already agree with you, it's usually better to start from a solid foundation.

The OP I made on this point made no mention of the constitution. Just pointing that out. But I accept your argument.

The individual I was responding to was attempting to stretch the Bill of Rights into the realm of Divinity when in fact, the founders only mentioned 3 which apply to this realm.

Animatronik:dr_blasto: None of these assholes had a problem with GHW Bush banning import of whole piles of guns by executive order. None of them seem pissed about the increased surveillance and erosion of the 4th and 5th. No, its just guns.

I'd also point out that this jackass has no idea what tyranny really is. Misuse a word long enough and it loses its meaning.

You do understand that, based on what's in the U.S. constitution, it matters what's in the executive order? That importation of guns is clearly a federal matter, whereas many other laws are left to the state's, or may be unconstitutional no matter who passes them.

The ignorance of this document is appalling. It has nothing to do with party affiliation. You need to know what is in it or shut your trap. No heinous crime can nullify it, quite the opposite.

Yeah, I understand that. My point is the fact there were no calls for civil war when that happened; it is party affiliation. Firearm restrictions put in place by Republicans don't raise the ire, even if they are equivalently bad as the Democratic legislation.

Nobody yet knows what Obama's executive orders are going to be. Nobody knows what legislation will be. Until you know what is in either, you need to shut your trap.

Lochsteppe:All of their fiascos are in their heads. Rent is cheap, green screen technology works at peak efficiency, and there are 275 different "Erase Memory" options.

True enough. This one's somewhat more infuriating (not as offensive, but more infurating) than many of the others because gun rights are the one major issue where the Republicans could have a sensible point to make, yet they insist on farking that eternal chicken instead... But... Yeah, you're right. :P

mittromneysdog:Anyway, so they may do by executive fiat -- I'm trying to read between the lines -- a national gun database. Now, why would we need a national gun database?

This guy goes apoplectic over the suggestion of a national gun database. But he has no objection whatsoever to Wayne LaPierre's proposal for a national registry for the mentally ill. That's right. Gun advocates call a gun registry "tyranny," but have no problem, none, with a human beings who have committed no crimes registry.

I am a gun owner and have committed no crime...why do I have to be in a database?

TwistedFark:knbwhite: edmo: His highly articulate thoughts complete with detailed implementation schema for stopping the killing of 5 and 6-year olds is a much welcome solution to our national problem. He and his buddies will have this all solved soon.

Backyard pools kill too many children. No one needs a backyard pool. If we can just save one child from drowning, I would gladly give up my right to have a back yard pool.

Stupid hyperbolic argument is stupid.

We have backyard pools here, but we have laws that state that they need to be enclosed so that children don't accidently fall into them and drown.

We have cars, but we have laws about how fast you can go and how you can drive them (and not drinking while driving) so that people are not needlessly killed.

Whilst doubtlessly a gun ban is the most effective way to reduce gun violence, what is being discussed is merely regulation, like the above examples, in order to reduce gun violence.

This is sensible. Your inability to see this makes you a moron. Good luck with that, and in life in general.

Moron.

Of course the pool comment was to make a point, sort of a devil's advocate point of view. You can't tell I'm a moron based on that alone.

Anyway, what regulations would have ensured the Sandy Hook shootings didn't happen? If you want to take the angle of smaller magazines and numbers of deaths I understand, but please also consider the numbers killed by pools and automobiles if you do.

Do me a favor and read this link http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assau lt-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Shae123:mittromneysdog: Anyway, so they may do by executive fiat -- I'm trying to read between the lines -- a national gun database. Now, why would we need a national gun database?

This guy goes apoplectic over the suggestion of a national gun database. But he has no objection whatsoever to Wayne LaPierre's proposal for a national registry for the mentally ill. That's right. Gun advocates call a gun registry "tyranny," but have no problem, none, with a human beings who have committed no crimes registry.

I am a gun owner and have committed no crime...why do I have to be in a database?

Hate to tell you this, you're already in a bunch of databases. Social Security, the DMV is you own a car. The point being, when someone gets shot, we should be able to figure out who owned the gun and how it ended up in the hands of the ultimate perp. It would be a way of fighting the black market and effectively catching criminals (both shooters and those circumventing current legislation about gun sales).

We have evidence over one decade after another of how the very same people pushing for gun control against law-abiding American citizens support radical left-wing judges who are soft on criminals, support weakened sentencing rules,

It's easy for young progressives to think it crazy for someone to speak about protecting their own liberty from a tyrannical government because they have been raised in a society protected by those who have fought against tyranny... and they have never faced the threat themselves.

To them it just seems like a boogyman.

Their support is easy to garner... all it seems to take is pleasant platitudes and empty promises.

skylabdown:It's easy for young progressives to think it crazy for someone to speak about protecting their own liberty from a tyrannical government because they have been raised in a society protected by those who have fought against tyranny... and they have never faced the threat themselves.

To them it just seems like a boogyman.

Their support is easy to garner... all it seems to take is pleasant platitudes and empty promises.

WTF has a whiny blowhard like Levin actually done? What tyrannical government did he fight against?